Ask a Christian a Question

P3RFECT
Theist
Posts: 75
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Ask a Christian a Question

Hello, I'm new here and i didn't feel like going to every thread and responding so i hope all of you get all the atheists and non atheists in here to have our discussion. Questions about Christianity. Now go tell everybody.

Also, please do one question at a time.


Maragon
Maragon's picture
Posts: 351
Joined: 2007-04-01
User is offlineOffline
P3RFECT wrote: Maragon

P3RFECT wrote:
Maragon wrote:

You dodged the question.

I asked why you would believe in a god if you cannot justify your beliefs with empirical evidence.

How many times do you guys need to ask the same question.

I'll ask until you answer. 

 

Quote:
First of all i don't need to justify my beliefs to anyone.

Uh, actually, you do.

See, you came here to OUR website, told us to ask you questions, and you are actively decrying our beliefs.

If you cannot provide evidence for your beliefs, what makes them better or more correct than ours? 

Quote:
Second, i believe because of experience/faith/experience.

Faith is a belief without proof. Believing in something without proof is nonsensical.

You said experience twice. Personal experience is not evidence for a deity. It is my personal experience that there is no god. Why is your experience 'right'? 

Quote:
Third, some believe there are scientific evidence of God and others don't. Just felt like putting that part out there.

I've never seen any, and I've looked. 


RationalSchema
RationalSchema's picture
Posts: 358
Joined: 2007-02-12
User is offlineOffline
P3RFECT

P3RFECT wrote:
RationalSchema wrote:

My understanding is that most creationists believe the world was created 6,000 to 10,000 years ago and this is according to the bible.

Please tell me you have more than they just kept having kids. If they all just kept having kids, why are we all not the same race. If they kept having kids, somewhere there was incest. The believability of your statement is just as believable as the tooth fairy taking my teeth.

 They didn't keep having kids for all of enternity. They had kids and those kids had kids. There was incest for a certain time to populate the world  but, as soon as we become more and more evil/sinful God didn't want relation like that anymore.

 I forgot the chapter and verse but, man was one civilization. God saw man and said they will become powerful and destroy themselves. So God confused man making them have different tongues (languages) separating them across the world.

So, how do you have proof that this happened??

"Those who think they know don't know. Those that know they don't know, know."


P3RFECT
Theist
Posts: 75
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
jce wrote: No, you are on

jce wrote:

No, you are on the wrong website. Atheists do not accept faith as evidence.

Never said that. You as many need to realize that we as many use faith because, we are required of it.

 

 

jce wrote:
I have been in a live debate and it did end well. I won. My opponent did not use faith as evidence or the bible or logical fallacies. Because of that we were able to learn something from each other but in the end he did concede the argument.

So you said to him/her, your belief is a fairy tale. I might as well believe a unicorn who lives in the forest of marsh mallow's of the pink ocean?

 

 

jce wrote:

This is not how the real world operates; only fantasy land.

Not how i see it. 

jce wrote:

Thanks! I will check it out.

Ok, kool 


P3RFECT
Theist
Posts: 75
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Maragon wrote: I'll ask

Maragon wrote:
I'll ask until you answer.

Then restate the question. 

 

Maragon wrote:

Uh, actually, you do.

See, you came here to OUR website, told us to ask you questions, and you are actively decrying our beliefs.

If you cannot provide evidence for your beliefs, what makes them better or more correct than ours?

 

and what evidence would you like. 

 

Maragon wrote:

Faith is a belief without proof. Believing in something without proof is nonsensical.

 Could be.

 

 

Maragon wrote:

You said experience twice. Personal experience is not evidence for a deity. It is my personal experience that there is no god. Why is your experience 'right'?

 It can be evidence to that individual.

Tell me your experience and then i can answer your question. 

 

 

 


P3RFECT
Theist
Posts: 75
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
RationalSchema wrote: So,

RationalSchema wrote:
So, how do you have proof that this happened??

 

 Outside the Bible, nizon (none).


Maragon
Maragon's picture
Posts: 351
Joined: 2007-04-01
User is offlineOffline
P3RFECT wrote: and what

P3RFECT wrote:

and what evidence would you like.

 

I would like evidence for god's existance that is neither from the bible nor personal experience.

Anytime that can be shown to me, I'll re-think my atheism. 


Kemono
Posts: 137
Joined: 2006-08-13
User is offlineOffline
P3RFECT wrote: Questions

P3RFECT wrote:

Questions about Christianity.

 

Welcome, P3RFECT!

Here is my question: If the deity you believe in has something important to communicate to mankind, why does it rely on methods that fail to get the message across such as fallible human evangelists and a collection of obscure Greek writings?

The majority of the population of the planet remains ignorant of the gospel. Surely an omnipotent being could communicate his message so that it is both heard and understood by all.


Jacob Cordingley
SuperfanBronze Member
Jacob Cordingley's picture
Posts: 1484
Joined: 2007-03-18
User is offlineOffline
P3RFECT wrote: Jacob

P3RFECT wrote:

Jacob Cordingley wrote:
My question to you is. In the great scheme of things, despite all the empirical evidence against you and the fact that your faith isn't based on evidence, and your logic is flawed, and despite many of us here going to hell for not believing in Jesus, what it boils down to is the greatest question of all: Do you like profiteroles? With chocolate sauce?

What empirical evidence against me? 

Thats what faith means.

Logic flawed? How so?

If you believe you won't.

Never had it. 

You admitted it yourself, you admit faith isn't based on reason. And you didn't answer my question.


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Outside the Bible, nizon

Outside the Bible, nizon (none).

That is a standard circular reasoning fallacy. You can pat yourself on the back for defeating your argument.

 

Tell me your experience and then i can answer your question.

My experience was studying quantum physics and realizing how ridiculous God was in light of it. I'll show you:

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/sapient/philosophy_and_psychology_with_chaoslord_and_todangst/6279

Tell, you what, if you can be the first theist on this site to actually respond to my noncognitivist argument, I'll buy you a free beer (its been up there for a few weeks now)...

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


moonhawk
Theist
Posts: 13
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Ask a Christian a Question

jce wrote:
moonhawk wrote:

I'll address the last part first. Asking someone a question about their god then telling them they can't use their holy book to answer is like asking you to explain evolution without referencing Darwin or his theory It would be irrational to ask someone about the Windows operating system but tell them they can't use Microsoft manuals to get their answer. Where else does one get the 'definitive answer' to a question about a god unless one goes to that gods holy writings. Let's be rational.

Are you fucking kidding me? There is no proof whatsoever in your holy book!

No, i'm not kidding you, fucking or otherwise. If you will read my post again you will see that I never used the word proof or any derivative of it.  What I said was that if you ask someone about their god the answers will be in that gods holy writings.  I didn't say the writings were proof or even accurate. That is my point. With the conditions you put into the questions it can't be proven. I would dare say that most any theory could be tested with such narrow conditions as to virtually eliminate a positive result. 

jce wrote:
I do not even need to reference Darwin to exlain evolution. There is a mountain of evidence to support that theory.

To paraphrase a certain movie "Show me the evidence!" Don't tell me about the mountains of it, show me. But you can't show me any pictures because they may have been tampered with. And you can't show me a piece of 'fossil evidence' if you didn't dig it up yourself, because it may be a fake. That is an example of conditions that make it unproveable.

jce wrote:
You have nothing but one book that mimics earlier mythology and none of you all can even agree on the interpretation.

And if you disallow that one book to be introduced as evidence you are setting conditions that make it unprovable.

jce wrote:
Theists will not hold their faith up to any scrutiny at all. They will not even look to compare it with something else for fear they may be wrong. Scientific theories are constantly tested specifically to LOOK for errors.

So, you've lived with me and have read and researched everything with me? I think not! Therefore saying what you just did is pure prejudice and incorrect. One must be careful of the all encompassing statements on makes. The ONLY thing I know of that can accuratly be said about ALL thiests is that they are all thiests.  I for one, have read the Bible several times cover-to-cover, I have read the Quran cover-to-cover, I have read Watchtower Magazine and several JW teaching books, I have read the Satanic Bible cover-to-cover, I have read several teaching books from 7th Day Adventist, I have attended Catholic services, as well as Baptist, Lutheran, and several others. I have had long conversations with Bhuddists, Hindus, Muslims, and athiests. I have read any number of websites (including this one) that don't agree with what some would call 'Core Christian Beliefs.' I treat my beliefs exactly the way you say Science should be done. I look at it and compare it to new information I recieve, testing both for validity. When I have come across new information that is valid, but different from what I believed, I revised my belief. Only a fool would do otherwise!

jce wrote:
Thus far, testing of evolution has only proved to support it further.

If that were true, why is it not called the Law of Evolution. We have the Law of gravity, and the Laws of Thermodynamics, for example. They were once theories also. But Science was able to prove them and they became Scientific Laws. Evolution is, Scientifically speaking, stil just a theory and not proven.

jce wrote:
moonhawk wrote:
Speaking of which, what IS rational. The way I understand it, something is rational when it makes sense, or it fits, or "we can wrap our heads around it." In math you have rational numbers like 1,2,3, etc. and you have irrational numbers like pi, the square root of 2, and anything divided by zero. What is the difference? The irrational ones we haven't figured out completely, the rational ones we have. We know what to do with 2 and 6 million, we cna add them, subtract them, and do a multitude of things with them. The irrational ones may not be completely understood, but we can sometimes use them to answer questions we have, like what is the area of a circle with a diameter of 10 units?

You are comparing apples to oranges. Rational THOUGHT is used when someone looks at a concept skeptically.

Rational THOUGHT would have shown you that I was using numbers as an anology to thought. Rational numbers = rational thought = logical answers, something that makes sense. Irrational numbers = irrational thought = illogical answers, something that does not make sense.  BTW, not all skeptics are rational.

jce wrote:
They weigh all of the evidence presented. They compare that evidence to what they already know and test it to see if it will hold true.

One can only hope that is true. We have to trust (have faith) that they have done this. Unless we were there with them we have no way of knowing for certain.

jce wrote:
No rational thought is used in faith. It is impossible by the definition of the word.

I agree with those statements, as far as they go. However, one can come to have faith in something or someone, and THEN use rational thought to compare and contrast that faith as they grow and come upon new information. This is exactly what I have done.

jce wrote:
moonhawk wrote:
It seems to me most folks here at coming at this religion thing irrationally. Belief in a god is by definiton irrational.

Finally! We agree on something.

moonhawk wrote:
Why? Because to believe in a god one must try to "wrap your head around" something you can't understand completly.

No - one must believe in something that cannot be proven. One must accept the existance of a supernatural being for absolutely no reason at all.

Cannot be proven...Yet! If Science can adjust as new information comes in and that's OK, why not treat a belief in God the same way? A thousand years ago mankind had no way to prove the earth was round...yet! By the same token, just because mankind today may have no way to prove God exists (without using the Bible or faith) doesn't mean He doesn't exist or that we won't be able to prove it in the future.

jce wrote:
moonhawk wrote:
As humans we have a difficult time with things we can't/don't understand. We MUST quantify, catagorize, compare and contrast, and rationalize. When we rationalize something we are trying to make it fit our way of thinking. How in the world could a human possibly rationalize the existance of a living, breathing, INFINITE god?!? We go bonkers just trying to contemplate the infiniteness of INFINITE. Our mind will ALWAYS put some kind of border or quantity on it.

I have no trouble conceptualizing an infinite universe.

Then you would be the first person I have ever heard of who didn't.  So, how about a little test? Try describing to us the INFINITE universe without limiting it in ANY way, or using the words infinite or universe.

jce wrote:
I have trouble with those that plug god into the equation to fit as an explanation for things they do not understand.

So what do you plug into the equation to fit?

jce wrote:
The rest of your post does not even merit a response.

Maybe I should have said your entire post did not merit a response. But, isn't that why we are here, to respond to each other? You are pulling a trick folks accuse the Christians of doing. Ignore it and it will go away. They were you're questions I answered. Sweeping them under the rug means they are still there, just under the rug. If you didn't like the answers, reason with me, tell me what you didn't like about them.

Follower of "I AM" the Elohim of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.


Jacob Cordingley
SuperfanBronze Member
Jacob Cordingley's picture
Posts: 1484
Joined: 2007-03-18
User is offlineOffline
I have another question.

I have another question. Why is this God character such a bad ethicist? I mean there are some things that are said to be sinful that don't harm anybody. Homosexuality for example. It harms no one. Sex before marraige is another example. Not only this but there are somethings which are not - according to the bible - sinful such as giving your wife or concubine away to a mob to stop them raping two men and letting them violently rape her until she dies crawling to your doorstep.

If God was omnibenevolent surely he'd be a better ethicist. I mean his laws don't make sense.


moonhawk
Theist
Posts: 13
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Largo wrote: moonhawk

Largo wrote:
moonhawk wrote:
Asking someone a question about their god then telling them they can't use their holy book to answer is like asking you to explain evolution without referencing Darwin or his theory It would be irrational to ask someone about the Windows operating system but tell them they can't use Microsoft manuals to get their answer. Where else does one get the 'definitive answer' to a question about a god unless one goes to that gods holy writings. Let's be rational.
Okay, let's. Refering to Darwin to explain evolution is logical because Darwin based his book on careful research and observable evidence. Using the Microsoft Manual to explain Windows is perfectly correct because it is written by the people who wrote the Windows program. They know what they did and how it works.

By the same token when asking about  Christianity or the Christian God why not use the book HE claims is His Word. See what He claims about Himself. If any of it can be proven (not just claimed to be) incorrect beyond a shadow of a doubt, then He wouldn't be who He claims to be would he. 

Largo wrote:
moonhawk wrote:
Speaking of which, what IS rational. The way I understand it, something is rational when it makes sense, or it fits, or "we can wrap our heads around it." In math you have rational numbers like 1,2,3, etc. and you have irrational numbers like pi, the square root of 2, and anything divided by zero. What is the difference? The irrational ones we haven't figured out completely, the rational ones we have. We know what to do with 2 and 6 million, we can add them, subtract them, and do a multitude of things with them. The irrational ones may not be completely understood, but we can sometimes use them to answer questions we have, like what is the area of a circle with a diameter of 10 units?
There you go again off the deep end. By your definition, people who observe the sun appearing to rise in the east and set in the west, are perfectly rational to assume that 1) the earth is flat, because they haven't yet noticed a curvature, and 2) the sun goes around the earth (which, coincidentally, biblical scholars killed people for denying for centuries).

As far as their knowledge goes, yes those conclusions would be rational. What would be irrational is if they continued believing it after irrefutable proof is given to them. Flat-earthers today are an example of the irrational.

Largo wrote:
It can be demonstrated that 2+2=4, but if your god insisted that it equaled 5 as a matter of faith, you woold still be irrational to accept 5 as the an swer.

YES! Exactly my point. From a human perspective, faith IS irrational.

Largo wrote:
moonhawk wrote:
It seems to me most folks here at coming at this religion thing irrationally. Belief in a god is by definiton irrational. Why? Because to believe in a god one must try to "wrap your head around" something you can't understand completly. As humans we have a difficult time with things we can't/don't understand. We MUST quantify, catagorize, compare and contrast, and rationalize. When we rationalize something we are trying to make it fit our way of thinking. How in the world could a human possibly rationalize the existance of a living, breathing, INFINITE god?!? We go bonkers just trying to contemplate the infiniteness of INFINITE. Our mind will ALWAYS put some kind of border or quantity on it.
Actually, it's a lot easier to rationalize things for which there is evidence. If you take the Old and New Testamentsd as evidence for anything you will always come up short, because they have been demonstrated over time to be riddled with error.

The way I understand things, nobody has yet come up with irrefutable proof of any errors in the Bible. As far as I can tell, the 'errors' are generally a matter of incomplete understanding. Can you give me a couple of examples of the errors. I honestly would like to know.

Largo wrote:
Christians still insist they must be accepted because they were written (or at least inspired by) the creator of the universe. But it doesn't take infinite understanding to know that when a book says a god created a plant which lived, and later created the sun which is necessary for the life of the plant, something in the book is out of whack.

Gen 1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

Gen 1:12-13 And the earth brought forth grass, [and] herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed [was] in itself, after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good. And the evening and the morning were the third day.

Maybe it is our understanding that is out of whack. Or were you thinking of another verse?

Largo wrote:
moonhawk wrote:
Now for the questions:

1. How do we know we worship the 'right' god since there are somany religions? First, 'religions' are simply a way to try to rationalize God. Because religions are of human origin, (italics and underscoring mine --Largo)they are each and every one flawed to one degree or another.

The bible also is of human origin. You can say it was inspired until you turn blue, but I'd say Tolkien was more inspired than the writers of the bible, and nobody thinks he wrote an eternal truth that people should die and kill for.

I would concede that only believers say the Bible is inspired. That is a matter of faith, therefore irrational again. Keep in mind that irrational doesn't automatically mean "wrong," it simply means "not understood completely." Nor am I saying it ever will or can be understood completely. My point is that rational is not always right, and irrational is not always wrong.

Largo wrote:
moonhawk wrote:
Second, which god is real or right? That is for each person to answer for themselves. I can't tell you Judiasm is the right way for you, or Islam is the right way for someone else. All I can say is the God of the Bible is 'right' for me. It is after all an individual choice. Which god do you believe is right? Or is your answer "none of the above?" Then that is right for you at this time. Can the 'right' one change? Yes, mine has, and from what I've read yours has also.
The change for most of us was from believing in one or another (almost never all) of those gods and bibles, most of us have come to the conclusion that they all are wrong.

And that is your right! I don't know everything you do, or have seen or experienced, so who am I to say you're wrong. I could say why I might THINK or BELIEVE you to be wrong, but an absolute "You are wrong,' I try to never say.

My change was from a child-like vision of God as the guy upstairs or some mystical flying angel or so, to a fairly mainstream Christian view to a very non-mainstream view. For example the more I read the Bible, Old and New Testament, the more I believe it is ALL a Book about a Hebrew faith, not a Christian one. Most Christians would tell you "The O.T. is done away with" when I believe it is not.  I have not read one verse in the N.T. which leads me to believe that Paul was anything but a Hebrew following a Hebrew God and teaching others to follow a Hebrew God. I, like others, originally believed what other people told me, then after I started reading and studying for myself I came to realize those people were telling me things that fit their agenda, not God's. This is why the first question I ask myself when confronted with new information is "What is this person's motivation for putting this info out there?"

Largo wrote:
moonhawk wrote:
3.Why are believers obsessed with making new believers? Why do you obsess about anything you believe in? Presumably one enjoys what one is doing (otherwise why the hell do it?), and don't we all tell others about what WE enjoy? When you got that new car, did you hide it in the garage and never take it out? NO! You drove that puppy everywhere and told everyone about it.

So if a believer has found something he deems to be more valuable than gold, silver, or even life itself, how could he not tell others and want them to partake also. The next time YOUR team wins a big game, let's see you not bragging...WE WON! Wait a minute...WE?!? You weren't there, yet you're bragging, aren't you. Same thing with a believer; they "weren't there, didn't do that" yet they brag as well.

Well, you've spoken well for believers, but you left out something. Over history, believers have tortured and murdered millions of people who may have been believers, too, because they held some idea that was heretical. I submit that, given the power that the church had in those days, you, too would kill unbelievers. Why not? Why should you not kill and torture people your book says your god will torture forever?

Mainly because that same Book says in 2nd Peter 3:9 that God ...is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.  If i were to kill someone I would be usurping God's role by deciding it was that person's time. I couldn't possibly know for certain thay they had repented. Therefore I would be a hypocrite, wanting God and Heaven for myself but not allowing others in.

And just because one clothes themselves in Christian words and titles, doesn't make them one. Now I know some of you would say something about the "real Scostman fallacy" which I never heard before coming to this site. From the context it was used in, I can guess it's meaning. What I am saying is if someone claims to follow the Bible, but their actions don't square with Bible teachings (not people's teachings), are they really following the Bible. How can one say they believe in something they are not, apparently, willing to obey.

Largo wrote:
This is why we insist on shining light wherever we find the darkness of superstition.

Keep on keepin' on!

Largo wrote:
There are people in America who would turn this country into a theocracy. Which brand of theocracy is anybody's guess.

I'm NOT one of them! Any brand would be bad. The only one I would want to live in is one ruled DIRECTLY by God Himself! NOT some human claiming to speak for God or any god.

Largo wrote:
But if the Catholics get control, look for the auto da fey to be brought back. If Baptists, look for a lot of Catholics being slaughtered. And all atheists, agnostics, Muslims, Hindus, Budhists, Taoists, Wycans, Pagans, etc. for hundreds if not thousands of religious groupings. You think not?

No, I think so, too! See above.

Largo wrote:
Again, refer to history. The only safe world is one without faith, a secular humanist world in which god, any god, is relegated to the same shelf as the Brothers Grimm. That's where he belongs.

Safe for whom?

Follower of "I AM" the Elohim of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.


rexlunae
rexlunae's picture
Posts: 378
Joined: 2007-01-07
User is offlineOffline
moonhawk wrote: To

moonhawk wrote:
To paraphrase a certain movie "Show me the evidence!" Don't tell me about the mountains of it, show me. But you can't show me any pictures because they may have been tampered with. And you can't show me a piece of 'fossil evidence' if you didn't dig it up yourself, because it may be a fake. That is an example of conditions that make it unproveable.

Oh please. Comparing the Bible to modern scientific research is absurd. You are essentially proposing that it is plausible that all of those interlocking puzzle pieces from biology, from cosmology, from geology, etc which support evolution are the result of a massive conspiracy, despite the fact that the results of many of these experiments can be easily reproduced by not just scientists, but anyone, and which are the basis for many applied fields such as medicine. And you equate that, in terms of truth value, to a book written for motives unknown by people who in many cases are not identified, about events which no one can reproduce under any kind of controlled conditions.

The idea that scientists have conspired together to forge fossils and pictures is laughable.

moonhawk wrote:
...I treat my beliefs exactly the way you say Science should be done....When I have come across new information that is valid, but different from what I believed, I revised my belief. Only a fool would do otherwise!

Oh really. Science throws out results that can't be repeated, so would you throw out the belief in the resurrection of Christ if no one else could repeat the resurrection? Would you throw out the parting of the Red Sea if no one could repeat it?

moonhawk wrote:
If that were true, why is it not called the Law of Evolution. We have the Law of gravity, and the Laws of Thermodynamics, for example. They were once theories also. But Science was able to prove them and they became Scientific Laws. Evolution is, Scientifically speaking, stil just a theory and not proven.

As Ken Miller (another theist, BTW) put it, a law is just a fact, but a theory ties together many facts and explains them. That is the sort of thing that evolution is: an explanation. As for the "Law of Gravity", you are probably referring to what is often also called "Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation" or "Newton's Theory of Universal Gravitation" (gravity does straddle the line between law and theory), which has been shown to be a good approximation but not quite correct, despite being sometimes called a law. Physicists use Einstein's Theory of General Relativity, because it is more accurate. So, a law is not a higher type of knowledge than a theory in science. Both require good evidence, but neither are ever beyond question.

moonhawk wrote:
Cannot be proven...Yet! If Science can adjust as new information comes in and that's OK, why not treat a belief in God the same way?

Homework assignment: Take out your Bible and a black marker and cross out every passage in the Bible that cannot be prooven with reliable evidence. Tell me what's left.

moonhawk wrote:
A thousand years ago mankind had no way to prove the earth was round...yet!

I would disagree, but let's pretend that you are right for the sake of argument. In fact, let's pretend that's true today. If we had no way of knowing the shape of the earth, I would expect that anyone making a claim about the shape should be able to prove it, or explain the reasoning that leads them to suspect the shape of the Earth. If they couldn't, or if their reasoning was flawed, then I would say that they were wrong. There's no penalty, in science, for not having all the answers, and it doesn't justify making something up just to have some answer.

moonhawk wrote:
jce wrote:
I have no trouble conceptualizing an infinite universe.

Then you would be the first person I have ever heard of who didn't. So, how about a little test? Try describing to us the INFINITE universe without limiting it in ANY way, or using the words infinite or universe.

She said conceptualize, not understand in every detail. Do you doubt that there are an infinite number of numbers just because you don't know anything about some of them?

It's only the fairy tales they believe.


canofbutter
Silver Member
canofbutter's picture
Posts: 37
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
moonhawk wrote: jce

moonhawk wrote:
jce wrote:
I have no trouble conceptualizing an infinite universe.
Then you would be the first person I have ever heard of who didn't. So, how about a little test? Try describing to us the INFINITE universe without limiting it in ANY way, or using the words infinite or universe.

If conceptualizing infinity is impossible, then calculus doesn't exist... Sad

Why yes, I can believe it's not butter!


RationalSchema
RationalSchema's picture
Posts: 358
Joined: 2007-02-12
User is offlineOffline
P3RFECT

P3RFECT wrote:

RationalSchema wrote:
So, how do you have proof that this happened??

 

 Outside the Bible, nizon (none).

Thank you for being intellectually honest. I commend you for not coming up with some stretch of the imagination arguement. Much respect.

"Those who think they know don't know. Those that know they don't know, know."


Largo
Largo's picture
Posts: 140
Joined: 2007-04-13
User is offlineOffline
moonhawk wrote: Largo

moonhawk wrote:

Largo wrote:
Why should you not kill and torture people your book says your god will torture forever?

moonhawk wrote:
Mainly because that same Book says in 2nd Peter 3:9 that God ...is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
  Then what is meant by John 6:44..."No man can come to me, except the father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day." Sounds  to me like only certain people are acceptable to god, and that those without an invitation cannot get into the kingdom, even if they want to. The two ideas clearly contradict each other. Also, If god is unwilling that anything should happen...by definition...it can't happen. Unless he's a fake without the absolute power  advertised. 

moonhawk wrote:
If i were to kill someone I would be usurping God's role by deciding it was that person's time. I couldn't possibly know for certain thay they had repented. Therefore I would be a hypocrite, wanting God and Heaven for myself but not allowing others in.
God reserves the right to do the killing, he who is unwilling that any should perish. Do you really not see the contradiction here?

moonhawk wrote:
And just because one clothes themselves in Christian words and titles, doesn't make them one.
I guess that depends on what one takes to be a christian. Since, during the time of the inquisition, arguably all christians were of one mind (certainly of one church) I would have to say you are mistaken.

 

 

 

Largo wrote:
Again, refer to history. The only safe world is one without faith, a secular humanist world in which god, any god, is relegated to the same shelf as the Brothers Grimm. That's where he belongs.

moonhawk wrote:
Safe for whom?

Safe for me and others who don't follow the mainstream. Safe for atheists. 

 

moonhawk wrote:
Gen 1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

Gen 1:12-13 And the earth brought forth grass, [and] herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed [was] in itself, after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good. And the evening and the morning were the third day.

Maybe it is our understanding that is out of whack. Or were you thinking of another verse?

Read on. There was light and darkness on the first day according to this silly story, but the sun was created on the fourth day. Gen. 1:16 And God made two great lights, the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night. 17 And God set them in the firmnament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, ...19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.


So, you have grass, and herbs, and seed, and trees all growing on the third day, and the sun created on the fourth. Now, I have to admit the whole of the story is unclear. First there is light. Next there are trees. Then it is told the the sun "the greater light" comes. But the same passage says what we assume to be the moon was "the lesser light to rule the night."  The moon is not a light at all, but a reflector of the sun's light. That is an error. You can claim it's a man's error, but the ,man is supposed to be inspired by god. If god can't make a man write the straight dope. but lets him fill the "testament" with error, then it is god's error.


minsin
Posts: 1
Joined: 2007-05-12
User is offlineOffline
P3rfect, everything you just

P3rfect, everything you just said does not necessary mean it's true, just because the bible said so. It's just like me saying, there are chocolate people on the moon and supporting this idea with a source that says, "There are chocolate people on the moon, -me"


JCE
Bronze Member
JCE's picture
Posts: 1219
Joined: 2007-03-20
User is offlineOffline
moonhawk wrote: No, i'm

moonhawk wrote:

No, i'm not kidding you, fucking or otherwise. If you will read my post again you will see that I never used the word proof or any derivative of it. What I said was that if you ask someone about their god the answers will be in that gods holy writings. I didn't say the writings were proof or even accurate. That is my point. With the conditions you put into the questions it can't be proven. I would dare say that most any theory could be tested with such narrow conditions as to virtually eliminate a positive result.

Thank you for proving my point. I will not accept the writings of one text to develop faith in anything.

moonhawk wrote:
To paraphrase a certain movie "Show me the evidence!" Don't tell me about the mountains of it, show me. But you can't show me any pictures because they may have been tampered with. And you can't show me a piece of 'fossil evidence' if you didn't dig it up yourself, because it may be a fake. That is an example of conditions that make it unproveable.

Do you believe the earth is flat?

moonhawk wrote:
And if you disallow that one book to be introduced as evidence you are setting conditions that make it unprovable.

No, I am asking for other evidence to be produced. None is available. The only argument that can stem from that is a circular argument. To me, this is poor reasoning on which to base faith.

moonhawk wrote:
So, you've lived with me and have read and researched everything with me? I think not! Therefore saying what you just did is pure prejudice and incorrect. One must be careful of the all encompassing statements on makes. The ONLY thing I know of that can accuratly be said about ALL thiests is that they are all thiests. I for one, have read the Bible several times cover-to-cover, I have read the Quran cover-to-cover, I have read Watchtower Magazine and several JW teaching books, I have read the Satanic Bible cover-to-cover, I have read several teaching books from 7th Day Adventist, I have attended Catholic services, as well as Baptist, Lutheran, and several others. I have had long conversations with Bhuddists, Hindus, Muslims, and athiests. I have read any number of websites (including this one) that don't agree with what some would call 'Core Christian Beliefs.' I treat my beliefs exactly the way you say Science should be done. I look at it and compare it to new information I recieve, testing both for validity. When I have come across new information that is valid, but different from what I believed, I revised my belief. Only a fool would do otherwise!

And still, no empirical evidence.

moonhawk wrote:
If that were true, why is it not called the Law of Evolution. We have the Law of gravity, and the Laws of Thermodynamics, for example. They were once theories also. But Science was able to prove them and they became Scientific Laws. Evolution is, Scientifically speaking, stil just a theory and not proven.

Apples to oranges. Gravity falls under the study of physics in which there are laws established for time, motion, etc. Evolution falls under the study of biology. I may be wrong, but there are no laws established in biology as there are in physics.

moonhawk wrote:
Rational THOUGHT would have shown you that I was using numbers as an anology to thought. Rational numbers = rational thought = logical answers, something that makes sense. Irrational numbers = irrational thought = illogical answers, something that does not make sense. BTW, not all skeptics are rational.

I understood your analogy, but it was wrong. The term irrational is not used the same in mathmatics as it is used when describing irrational thought.

moonhawk wrote:
jce wrote:
They weigh all of the evidence presented. They compare that evidence to what they already know and test it to see if it will hold true.

One can only hope that is true. We have to trust (have faith) that they have done this. Unless we were there with them we have no way of knowing for certain.

Again, do you believe the earth is flat?

moonhawk wrote:
I agree with those statements, as far as they go. However, one can come to have faith in something or someone, and THEN use rational thought to compare and contrast that faith as they grow and come upon new information. This is exactly what I have done.

Trust in something is not the same as faith.

moonhawk wrote:
Cannot be proven...Yet! If Science can adjust as new information comes in and that's OK, why not treat a belief in God the same way? A thousand years ago mankind had no way to prove the earth was round...yet! By the same token, just because mankind today may have no way to prove God exists (without using the Bible or faith) doesn't mean He doesn't exist or that we won't be able to prove it in the future.

Two thousand years have passed with no new information to prove the existence of your god (or any other). I did not say that it would not be proven at some point, but to date nothing has come to light. Scientists, on the other hand, have provided significant information regarding our universe and life (among other things).

moonhawk wrote:
Then you would be the first person I have ever heard of who didn't. So, how about a little test? Try describing to us the INFINITE universe without limiting it in ANY way, or using the words infinite or universe.

As stated in another post, conceptualizing and describing are two different things. I am not a physicist but that does not prevent me from grasping the concept.

moonhawk wrote:
jce wrote:
I have trouble with those that plug god into the equation to fit as an explanation for things they do not understand.

So what do you plug into the equation to fit?

Why plug anything in? Why not just say 'I don't know'?


Susan
Susan's picture
Posts: 3561
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
I think this quote just

I think this quote just about covers the whole thing.  Case closed. 

P3RFECT wrote:
Maragon wrote:

Can you prove the existance of your god without using the bible or personal experience?

nah, not really.

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


moonhawk
Theist
Posts: 13
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Largo wrote:moonhawk

Largo wrote:
moonhawk wrote:

Largo wrote:
Why should you not kill and torture people your book says your god will torture forever?

moonhawk wrote:
Mainly because that same Book says in 2nd Peter 3:9 that God ...is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
 

Largo wrote:
Then what is meant by John 6:44..."No man can come to me, except the father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day." Sounds  to me like only certain people are acceptable to god, and that those without an invitation cannot get into the kingdom, even if they want to. The two ideas clearly contradict each other.  

John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

There is the invite - to him/her who believes. The disciples were told in the Bible to go into all the world and spread the good news, or in other word, invite everybody. Then, when someone starts believing, God draws them to the Messiah. This is what is meant in John 6:44. There is no contradiction.

Largo wrote:
Also, If god is unwilling that anything should happen...by definition...it can't happen. Unless he's a fake without the absolute power  advertised.

Being a fake without absolute power and having absolute power but choosing NOT to use it, is very different. According to the Bible, God does have the power but chooses not to use it to counteract our 'free will.'

Largo wrote:
moonhawk wrote:
If i were to kill someone I would be usurping God's role by deciding it was that person's time. I couldn't possibly know for certain thay they had repented. Therefore I would be a hypocrite, wanting God and Heaven for myself but not allowing others in.

Largo wrote:
God reserves the right to do the killing, he who is unwilling that any should perish. Do you really not see the contradiction here?[/qoute]

God is not willing that any should perish, but repent and have everlasting life. It is the spiritual death God doesn't want anyone to suffer. In our fallen state all of us will die physically, but the Spirit lives on to eternal life with God or eternal death without God. And technically, according to the Bible, God alone has control over life and death. So if God chose to keep someone alive physically, He could. The way i understand it, He doesn't generally do that.

Largo wrote:
moonhawk wrote:
And just because one clothes themselves in Christian words and titles, doesn't make them one.

Largo wrote:
I guess that depends on what one takes to be a christian. Since, during the time of the inquisition, arguably all christians were of one mind (certainly of one church) I would have to say you are mistaken.

I would concede that most if not all 'Catholics' were of one mind during the inquisition, but not that all 'Christians' were. You seem to be forgetting the Eastern Orthodox Church, as well as the Oriental (Coptic) Orthodox Church and later the Anabaptists. Each of them would claim to be Christian, but did not participate in the inquisition of the Roman Catholic Church, which was the dominate church in the middle ages in Europe.

Keep in mind that the Bible says in Matt 7:15 "Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves." So not all who are outwardly Christians truly are what they appear to be.

Largo wrote:
Largo wrote:
Again, refer to history. The only safe world is one without faith, a secular humanist world in which god, any god, is relegated to the same shelf as the Brothers Grimm. That's where he belongs.

moonhawk wrote:
Safe for whom?

Largo wrote:
Safe for me and others who don't follow the mainstream. Safe for atheists.

I would daresay that the USA has been a safe world for atheists, even though most athiests would agree this country was originally founded as, and continues to be to a point, a Christian nation. And I submit that it is because of the lack of a 'National" church. Without a National Church (like Anglican in England, Roman Catholic in most countries of Europe), we were each free to practice our own religion or no religion at all.

Largo wrote:
moonhawk wrote:
Gen 1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

Gen 1:12-13 And the earth brought forth grass, [and] herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed [was] in itself, after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good. And the evening and the morning were the third day.

Maybe it is our understanding that is out of whack. Or were you thinking of another verse?

Largo wrote:
Read on. There was light and darkness on the first day according to this silly story, but the sun was created on the fourth day. Gen. 1:16 And God made two great lights, the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night. 17 And God set them in the firmnament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, ...19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

So, you have grass, and herbs, and seed, and trees all growing on the third day, and the sun created on the fourth. Now, I have to admit the whole of the story is unclear. First there is light. Next there are trees. Then it is told the the sun "the greater light" comes.

Yes, on the firs day light was created, doesn't say it had shape or form though. On the fourth the light was given form in the shape of the Sun and Moon. I personally don't see a contradiction.

 

Largo wrote:
But the same passage says what we assume to be the moon was "the lesser light to rule the night."  The moon is not a light at all, but a reflector of the sun's light. That is an error. You can claim it's a man's error, but the ,man is supposed to be inspired by god. If god can't make a man write the straight dope. but lets him fill the "testament" with error, then it is god's error.

So you make the same error, if it is one, everytime you mention the 'moonlight.' Do you, or anyone you know for that matter, always/usually say "the light of the Sun reflecting off of the Moon" instead of "moonlight?" I don't think so. Try using that line on the next girl you take out at night. "The light of the Sun reflecting off of the Moon in your hair is beautiful!"

Again, no error, simply the common vernacular.

Follower of "I AM" the Elohim of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.


Echo
Theist
Posts: 59
Joined: 2007-05-09
User is offlineOffline
Quote: Rigor_OMortis

Quote:
Rigor_OMortis wrote:

Why did God supposedly create us without our consent?

I don't remember being asked whether I want to exist or not, because certainly the answer would have been "no".

One more question: ok, God created us without our consent. Why is he threatening us with Hell now? How can you be considered "good" if you punish someone for something he didn't want to be part of in the first place?

God isn't threatening us of Hell now, he is warning us of the choice that we ourselves are making.

If you warn your children not to jump off of that 100 foot cliff and they do it, they made the choice. The children failed to heed the loving warning you gave them and as a result, they died.

If you die and go to Hell, it is because you failed to heed God's warning. You chose spiritual death instead of spiritual life.

God respects you and loves you enough to let you decide wether you want to spend eternity with him or not. He does not force anyone into his family.

Isaiah 1:18 " Come now, let us REASON together,"
says the LORD.
"Though your sins are like scarlet,
they shall be as white as snow;
though they are red as crimson,
they shall be like wool.

Member of WELS


moonhawk
Theist
Posts: 13
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
jce wrote: moonhawk

jce wrote:
moonhawk wrote:

No, i'm not kidding you, fucking or otherwise. If you will read my post again you will see that I never used the word proof or any derivative of it. What I said was that if you ask someone about their god the answers will be in that gods holy writings. I didn't say the writings were proof or even accurate. That is my point. With the conditions you put into the questions it can't be proven. I would dare say that most any theory could be tested with such narrow conditions as to virtually eliminate a positive result.

jce wrote:
Thank you for proving my point. I will not accept the writings of one text to develop faith in anything.

moonhawk wrote:
To paraphrase a certain movie "Show me the evidence!" Don't tell me about the mountains of it, show me. But you can't show me any pictures because they may have been tampered with. And you can't show me a piece of 'fossil evidence' if you didn't dig it up yourself, because it may be a fake. That is an example of conditions that make it unproveable.

jce wrote:
Do you believe the earth is flat?

Are you folks on here purposely being obtuse?  Several of you have completely missed the last part of that quote. Here it is again: "That is an example of conditions that make it unproveable." 

I NEVER said that I believed a photo was not proper evidence (although Photoshop is handy) or I had to dig it up myself, just like I NEVER expect any  of you to do so either. Example was the key word. The point was IF the only evidence you COULD use to prove evolution was true was ONLY what you had gathered yourself, evolution would not be provable. Understand now?!?!

jce wrote:
moonhawk wrote:
And if you disallow that one book to be introduced as evidence you are setting conditions that make it unprovable.

No, I am asking for other evidence to be produced. None is available. The only argument that can stem from that is a circular argument. To me, this is poor reasoning on which to base faith.

There is some evidence of the accuracy of the Bible, to those who are willing to open their minds, but physical, can I touch it, evidence of the existance of God, none that I know of outside the Bible. That is why I said faith is, from a purely physical standpoint irrational and "poor reasoning on which to base faith." Faith is not based on reason. You and I are saying the same thing there.

jce wrote:
moonhawk wrote:
So, you've lived with me and have read and researched everything with me? I think not! Therefore saying what you just did is pure prejudice and incorrect. One must be careful of the all encompassing statements on makes. The ONLY thing I know of that can accuratly be said about ALL thiests is that they are all thiests. I for one, have read the Bible several times cover-to-cover, I have read the Quran cover-to-cover, I have read Watchtower Magazine and several JW teaching books, I have read the Satanic Bible cover-to-cover, I have read several teaching books from 7th Day Adventist, I have attended Catholic services, as well as Baptist, Lutheran, and several others. I have had long conversations with Bhuddists, Hindus, Muslims, and athiests. I have read any number of websites (including this one) that don't agree with what some would call 'Core Christian Beliefs.' I treat my beliefs exactly the way you say Science should be done. I look at it and compare it to new information I recieve, testing both for validity. When I have come across new information that is valid, but different from what I believed, I revised my belief. Only a fool would do otherwise!

And still, no empirical evidence.

Already responded to this above.

jce wrote:
moonhawk wrote:
If that were true, why is it not called the Law of Evolution. We have the Law of gravity, and the Laws of Thermodynamics, for example. They were once theories also. But Science was able to prove them and they became Scientific Laws. Evolution is, Scientifically speaking, stil just a theory and not proven.

Apples to oranges. Gravity falls under the study of physics in which there are laws established for time, motion, etc. Evolution falls under the study of biology. I may be wrong, but there are no laws established in biology as there are in physics.

That makes no sense and doesn't even come close to answering the question. Try this:

rexlunae wrote:
As Ken Miller (another theist, BTW) put it, a law is just a fact, but a theory ties together many facts and explains them. That is the sort of thing that evolution is: an explanation. As for the "Law of Gravity", you are probably referring to what is often also called "Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation" or "Newton's Theory of Universal Gravitation" (gravity does straddle the line between law and theory), which has been shown to be a good approximation but not quite correct, despite being sometimes called a law. Physicists use Einstein's Theory of General Relativity, because it is more accurate. So, a law is not a higher type of knowledge than a theory in science. Both require good evidence, but neither are ever beyond question.

That answers the question, and I concede the point as he answered it He was also obtuse about the 'Example' thing above, but he got this one right.

jce wrote:
moonhawk wrote:
Rational THOUGHT would have shown you that I was using numbers as an anology to thought. Rational numbers = rational thought = logical answers, something that makes sense. Irrational numbers = irrational thought = illogical answers, something that does not make sense. BTW, not all skeptics are rational.

I understood your analogy, but it was wrong. The term irrational is not used the same in mathmatics as it is used when describing irrational thought.

Well that is another thing I will agree to disagree with you about. The analogy is a good one.

jce wrote:
moonhawk wrote:
jce wrote:
They weigh all of the evidence presented. They compare that evidence to what they already know and test it to see if it will hold true.

One can only hope that is true. We have to trust (have faith) that they have done this. Unless we were there with them we have no way of knowing for certain.

Again, do you believe the earth is flat?

no, are you still being obtuse?

jce wrote:
moonhawk wrote:
I agree with those statements, as far as they go. However, one can come to have faith in something or someone, and THEN use rational thought to compare and contrast that faith as they grow and come upon new information. This is exactly what I have done.

Trust in something is not the same as faith.

According to http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/:

faith: Middle English feith, from Anglo-French feid, fei, from Latin fides; akin to Latin fidere to trust

2 a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust

trust:Middle English, probably of Scandinavian origin; akin to Old Norse traust trust; akin to Old English trEowe faithful

1 a : to place confidence : Depend <trust in God> <trust to luck>

They may not be identical, but they are damn close!

jce wrote:
moonhawk wrote:
Cannot be proven...Yet! If Science can adjust as new information comes in and that's OK, why not treat a belief in God the same way? A thousand years ago mankind had no way to prove the earth was round...yet! By the same token, just because mankind today may have no way to prove God exists (without using the Bible or faith) doesn't mean He doesn't exist or that we won't be able to prove it in the future.

Two thousand years have passed with no new information to prove the existence of your god (or any other). I did not say that it would not be proven at some point, but to date nothing has come to light. Scientists, on the other hand, have provided significant information regarding our universe and life (among other things).

If you have an open mind try this:

http://www.anchorstone.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=155&Itemid=53

Bear in mind, I'm NOT advocating that everything on that website is gospel truth, just that it is very interesting, and could be potential proof of at least part of the Biblical story.

jce wrote:
moonhawk wrote:
Then you would be the first person I have ever heard of who didn't. So, how about a little test? Try describing to us the INFINITE universe without limiting it in ANY way, or using the words infinite or universe.

As stated in another post, conceptualizing and describing are two different things. I am not a physicist but that does not prevent me from grasping the concept.

Yes, but the original point was that human minds catorgorize, quantify, and therefore limit the concept of something that is infinite and therefore cannot grasp the entirety of it. This is the same problem humans have with the concept of an Infinite God. We cannot see the entirety of Him, assuming one believes in Him at all.

jce wrote:
moonhawk wrote:
jce wrote:
I have trouble with those that plug god into the equation to fit as an explanation for things they do not understand.

So what do you plug into the equation to fit?

Why plug anything in? Why not just say 'I don't know'?

I don't know! That is why I choose to believe.

Follower of "I AM" the Elohim of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.


Echo
Theist
Posts: 59
Joined: 2007-05-09
User is offlineOffline
zarargystra

zarargystra wrote:

Quote:
Without evidence, how do you demonstrate that your faith is more truthful than faith in another god?

God is love.

Here are two scenario's. One is representative of parents who love their child and the other is representative of parents who don't.

False faith, false religion is this:

Two parents come to the orphanage to adopt a child. They bring the child home and say: "Billy, If you do this, this and this, then we will finalize the adoption." So Billy cowers in fear because the this, this and this is very difficult! Now everything that Billy does is self serving. He attempts to obey for reasons other than out of love for these people. So in the end, he fails and the parents return him to the orphanage because Billy didn't live up to thier expectations.

True faith, true religion is this:

Two parents come to the orphanage to adopt a Child. Out of all the children in the orphanage, they choose the rebellious one, the one with a bad temper, the one who behaves defiantley and they sit him down. They tell him that they have already adopted him, he is now there child and they are going to love him unconditionally. There is no trial period like in the first scenario. It is through their unconditional love, that Billy begins to soften, he becomes less and less defiant and he loses his temper less and less. Over time, Billy turns out to be a very nice kid. It was the unconditional love and forgiveness and acceptance of Billy, just as he, that changed Billy. Billy changed because he was loved and because he was loved by his parents, he couldn't help but love them in return.

All religion falls into the first scenario.

True Christianity falls into the second category. (I say true Christianity because their is false Christianity and the Bible teaches us how to tell the difference)

Isaiah 1:18 " Come now, let us REASON together,"
says the LORD.
"Though your sins are like scarlet,
they shall be as white as snow;
though they are red as crimson,
they shall be like wool.

Member of WELS


rexlunae
rexlunae's picture
Posts: 378
Joined: 2007-01-07
User is offlineOffline
moonhawk wrote: If you have

moonhawk wrote:
If you have an open mind try this:
http://www.anchorstone.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=155&Itemid=53
Bear in mind, I'm NOT advocating that everything on that website is gospel truth, just that it is very interesting, and could be potential proof of at least part of the Biblical story.

The person making these claims originally was Ron Wyatt, a pseudo-archaeologist and pseudo-historian with no formal training and no respect from real archaeologists or real historians. All his claims are suspect, especially given the number of Biblical sites he claims to have discovered.

It's only the fairy tales they believe.


djneibarger
Superfan
djneibarger's picture
Posts: 564
Joined: 2007-04-13
User is offlineOffline
why does god help football

why does god help football players make touchdowns but he doesn't stop his own priests from raping little boys in his own churches?

and please don't include anything like "god works in mysterious ways" or "god has a plan for everybody" in your answer. 

www.derekneibarger.com http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=djneibarger "all postures of submission and surrender should be part of our prehistory." -christopher hitchens


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
Echo wrote: God isn't

Echo wrote:

God isn't threatening us of Hell now, he is warning us of the choice that we ourselves are making.

If you warn your children not to jump off of that 100 foot cliff and they do it, they made the choice. The children failed to heed the loving warning you gave them and as a result, they died.

 

It can be demonstrated that jumping off a 100 foot cliff can kill you. It cannot be demonstrated the failure to cower before the scary god-thing of antiquity has any negative impact. It’s actually pretty amusing.

Quote:

If you die and go to Hell, it is because you failed to heed God's warning. You chose spiritual death instead of spiritual life.

God respects you and loves you enough to let you decide wether you want to spend eternity with him or not. He does not force anyone into his family.

 

If god respected and loved people then he/it wouldn’t create a situation where one could reasonably conclude that god doesn’t exist and go to hell for it. So either everyone that disagrees with you is being unreasonable or your god is a tyrant. Or maybe it just doesn’t exist.

 

 

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft


Echo
Theist
Posts: 59
Joined: 2007-05-09
User is offlineOffline
Quote: It can be

Quote:
It can be demonstrated that jumping off a 100 foot cliff can kill you. It cannot be demonstrated the failure to cower before the scary god-thing of antiquity has any negative impact. It’s actually pretty amusing

God is not scarey at all. Did you read my other post up yonder where I compared true religion with false religion?

Quote:
If god respected and loved people then he/it wouldn’t create a situation where one could reasonably conclude that god doesn’t exist and go to hell for it. So either everyone that disagrees with you is being unreasonable or your god is a tyrant. Or maybe it just doesn’t exist.

One can reasonably conclude that he does exist. Our problem is that we listen to men instead of listening to God.
And that is when we throw out our reasoning.

Isaiah 1:18 " Come now, let us REASON together,"
says the LORD.
"Though your sins are like scarlet,
they shall be as white as snow;
though they are red as crimson,
they shall be like wool.

Member of WELS


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1521
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is offlineOffline
Echo

Echo wrote:
zarathustra wrote:
Without evidence, how do you demonstrate that your faith is more truthful than faith in another god?
God is love.

...

False faith, false religion is this:

...

True faith, true religion is this:

According to what? By what independent criterion/criteria do we establish that "god is love", or what true/false religion is?

[edit to fix quotes] 

There are no theists on operating tables.

πππ†
π†††


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
Echo wrote: God is not

Echo wrote:
God is not scarey at all. Did you read my other post up yonder where I compared true religion with false religion?

That's completely beside the point. You can't compare disbelief in something that there is no evidence for with cliffdiving. There are good reasons to think one is dangerous and no reason to think the other is.

Quote:
One can reasonably conclude that he does exist. Our problem is that we listen to men instead of listening to God.
And that is when we throw out our reasoning.

Ah, I think I understand now. God's beef is not really with disbelief it's with reason. We should stop using reason and then we can properly kiss god's butt.

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft


moonhawk
Theist
Posts: 13
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
rexlunae wrote: moonhawk

rexlunae wrote:
moonhawk wrote:
If you have an open mind try this: http://www.anchorstone.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=155&Itemid=53 Bear in mind, I'm NOT advocating that everything on that website is gospel truth, just that it is very interesting, and could be potential proof of at least part of the Biblical story.
The person making these claims originally was Ron Wyatt, a pseudo-archaeologist and pseudo-historian with no formal training and no respect from real archaeologists or real historians. All his claims are suspect, especially given the number of Biblical sites he claims to have discovered.

Why is it that we humans tend to label those we agree with as REAL  and those we disagree with as PSEUDO. How many SCIENTIFIC advances were made by so-called pseudo-scientists with no training and no respect from the REAL scientists of the day? Orville and Wilbur Wright were bicycle shop owners, NOT aeronautical engineers, but look what they did.

Ron Wyatt was by training and profesion n anesthesiologist, which by the way is a SCIENTIFIC field trained in SCIENTIFIC methods. Is it not possible that he took the scientific training he received in one field and used it in another?

As for no respect from the so-called REAL archeologists and historians, big deal! What is their agenda? Could it be jealousy that THEY didn't discover what he did? Could it be that they are athiests and would dismiss out-of-hand ANY discovery proving the Bible or a portion of it were true?

And why would you say "All his claims are suspect, especially given the number of Biblical sites he claims to have discovered?" Does this mean ALL of Thomas Edison's discoveries and inventions are suspect given the number of them? That would be absurd! The number of discoveries one makes or claims to make is NOT an automatic disqualification of them all.

Assuming you actually read the article in the link, if you disagree with his findings, what would be your conclusion based on the findings?

Follower of "I AM" the Elohim of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Echo wrote: zarargystra

Echo wrote:
zarargystra wrote:
Quote:
Without evidence, how do you demonstrate that your faith is more truthful than faith in another god?
God is love. Here are two scenario's. One is representative of parents who love their child and the other is representative of parents who don't. False faith, false religion is this: Two parents come to the orphanage to adopt a child. They bring the child home and say: "Billy, If you do this, this and this, then we will finalize the adoption." So Billy cowers in fear because the this, this and this is very difficult! Now everything that Billy does is self serving. He attempts to obey for reasons other than out of love for these people. So in the end, he fails and the parents return him to the orphanage because Billy didn't live up to thier expectations. True faith, true religion is this: Two parents come to the orphanage to adopt a Child. Out of all the children in the orphanage, they choose the rebellious one, the one with a bad temper, the one who behaves defiantley and they sit him down. They tell him that they have already adopted him, he is now there child and they are going to love him unconditionally. There is no trial period like in the first scenario. It is through their unconditional love, that Billy begins to soften, he becomes less and less defiant and he loses his temper less and less. Over time, Billy turns out to be a very nice kid. It was the unconditional love and forgiveness and acceptance of Billy, just as he, that changed Billy. Billy changed because he was loved and because he was loved by his parents, he couldn't help but love them in return. All religion falls into the first scenario. True Christianity falls into the second category. (I say true Christianity because their is false Christianity and the Bible teaches us how to tell the difference)

Actually, the first scenario looks more like biblical christianity is and the second looks  like what the people who try to sell christianity want it to be. 

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
moonhawk wrote: rexlunae

moonhawk wrote:

rexlunae wrote:
moonhawk wrote:
If you have an open mind try this: http://www.anchorstone.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=155&Itemid=53 Bear in mind, I'm NOT advocating that everything on that website is gospel truth, just that it is very interesting, and could be potential proof of at least part of the Biblical story.
The person making these claims originally was Ron Wyatt, a pseudo-archaeologist and pseudo-historian with no formal training and no respect from real archaeologists or real historians. All his claims are suspect, especially given the number of Biblical sites he claims to have discovered.

Why is it that we humans tend to label those we agree with as REAL and those we disagree with as PSEUDO. How many SCIENTIFIC advances were made by so-called pseudo-scientists with no training and no respect from the REAL scientists of the day? Orville and Wilbur Wright were bicycle shop owners, NOT aeronautical engineers, but look what they did.

Ron Wyatt was by training and profesion n anesthesiologist, which by the way is a SCIENTIFIC field trained in SCIENTIFIC methods. Is it not possible that he took the scientific training he received in one field and used it in another?

As for no respect from the so-called REAL archeologists and historians, big deal! What is their agenda? Could it be jealousy that THEY didn't discover what he did? Could it be that they are athiests and would dismiss out-of-hand ANY discovery proving the Bible or a portion of it were true?

And why would you say "All his claims are suspect, especially given the number of Biblical sites he claims to have discovered?" Does this mean ALL of Thomas Edison's discoveries and inventions are suspect given the number of them? That would be absurd! The number of discoveries one makes or claims to make is NOT an automatic disqualification of them all.

Assuming you actually read the article in the link, if you disagree with his findings, what would be your conclusion based on the findings?

How does being a gas-passer help with the study of human culture?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Largo
Largo's picture
Posts: 140
Joined: 2007-04-13
User is offlineOffline
moonhawk wrote: And why

moonhawk wrote:
And why would you say "All his claims are suspect, especially given the number of Biblical sites he claims to have discovered?" Does this mean ALL of Thomas Edison's discoveries and inventions are suspect given the number of them? That would be absurd! The number of discoveries one makes or claims to make is NOT an automatic disqualification of them all.
Come on, moonhawk. Invention and discovery are not the same thing. Your argument here is specious. If Edison had "discovered" fifteen "lost" cities instead of inventing fifteen new gadgets everyone (except, maybe, you) would have suspected him of being a fraud. Archaeological sites are found by the most astute of scientists only rarely.  They don't pop up like nuggets in an un-panned stream.


rexlunae
rexlunae's picture
Posts: 378
Joined: 2007-01-07
User is offlineOffline
moonhawk wrote: Why is it

moonhawk wrote:
Why is it that we humans tend to label those we agree with as REAL  and those we disagree with as PSEUDO. How many SCIENTIFIC advances were made by so-called pseudo-scientists with no training and no respect from the REAL scientists of the day? Orville and Wilbur Wright were bicycle shop owners, NOT aeronautical engineers, but look what they did.

It has nothing to do with agreeing or not agreeing. It's just that pseudo-science has certain common elements, and Wyatt shares them. Most of the time, when people rail against the scientific establishment, they are frauds. The same thing happens with creation 'science'.

moonhawk wrote:
Ron Wyatt was by training and profesion n anesthesiologist, which by the way is a SCIENTIFIC field trained in SCIENTIFIC methods. Is it not possible that he took the scientific training he received in one field and used it in another?

Possible, maybe, but not likely. There's a reason these things are separate studies; they have different established and tested methods which have been shown to work. And, I would point out that he was actually a nurse-anesthetist, meaning that he may have had less training, and in some states he wouldn't have even had to complete a 4-year undergraduate degree (I haven't been able to find a complete description of his actual training). But, if he were accepted by historians or archaeologists, I would be more inclined to believe his claims, however it appears that his standards of proof are too low.

moonhawk wrote:
As for no respect from the so-called REAL archeologists and historians, big deal! What is their agenda? Could it be jealousy that THEY didn't discover what he did? Could it be that they are athiests and would dismiss out-of-hand ANY discovery proving the Bible or a portion of it were true?

For this to be an explanation, you would have to believe that most archaeologists and historians are dishonest, or that most of them are atheists and biased, or both. Seems unlikely. Are you seriously ready to argue that Ron Wyatt is the only real archaeologist or historian?

moonhawk wrote:
And why would you say "All his claims are suspect, especially given the number of Biblical sites he claims to have discovered?" Does this mean ALL of Thomas Edison's discoveries and inventions are suspect given the number of them? That would be absurd! The number of discoveries one makes or claims to make is NOT an automatic disqualification of them all.

I question the number because the things he is supposedly discovering are from thousands of years ago, and all Biblical. Isn't it just too convenient that for thousands of years, these things which supposedly contributed so much to the culture of the Western and Near Eastern world have been missing, and then suddenly one guy without any proper training finds them all over the course of just 22 years?

moonhawk wrote:
Assuming you actually read the article in the link, if you disagree with his findings, what would be your conclusion based on the findings?

Well, first of all, I don't feel the need to draw my own conclusions. I'm not qualified. I'd be much more interrested in the conclusions of someone who is. Second, I would insist on the documentation of the findings coming from an objective source. The article you posted has phrases like "but it appears that the coral was the agent the Lord used to preserve them" in it, it states Biblical narrative as unquestioned fact, and quotes Bible verses as part of their case.

It's only the fairy tales they believe.


Echo
Theist
Posts: 59
Joined: 2007-05-09
User is offlineOffline
Quote: Actually, the first

Quote:
Actually, the first scenario looks more like biblical christianity is and the second looks like what the people who try to sell christianity want it to be.

False teachers will teach and preach the first scenario. But the Bible is clear. We can know right now that we HAVE eternal life before we "DO" anything.

John 5:24 ""I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life."

Notice the present tense in the above verse. It says "has" eternal life. It does not say: "will get eternal life"
It says "has" crossed over..." not "will cross over"

In the first scenario, it would be impossible to use the present tense because we would have to do, do and do before we could have the assurance that we are adopted.

Isaiah 1:18 " Come now, let us REASON together,"
says the LORD.
"Though your sins are like scarlet,
they shall be as white as snow;
though they are red as crimson,
they shall be like wool.

Member of WELS


Echo
Theist
Posts: 59
Joined: 2007-05-09
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Actually, the first

Oops double posted


Rev. Bob
Rev. Bob's picture
Posts: 6
Joined: 2007-05-16
User is offlineOffline
European or African wave

European or African wave function?


Rev. Bob
Rev. Bob's picture
Posts: 6
Joined: 2007-05-16
User is offlineOffline
European or African

{Mod edit - Double post removed}


Largo
Largo's picture
Posts: 140
Joined: 2007-04-13
User is offlineOffline
So, "Rev." Bob, I guess the

So, "Rev." Bob, I guess the "A" on your shirt doesn't stand for "atheist." I hope hereafter you won't mind being called just plain Bob. That reverend thing doesn't play too well here. Welcome to the site. 


Gizmo
High Level Donor
Gizmo's picture
Posts: 397
Joined: 2007-03-06
User is offlineOffline
Heres a question (and if

Heres a question (and if its been answered somewhere else, could someone link me) that I would love to have an answer to.  Would someone please let me know, without referring to the bible or faith in their deity to strike people down, why homesexuality is wrong?

The three big things politics wise that gets thrown around during elections is abortion, stem cell and gay rights/marriage.  As stupid as I may think, the other two I guess if you have an issue killing cells then fine.  However, I can not invision any reason why their is such distaste and the wish to ban gay marriage and to a lesser extent, gay rights.  Someone give me something that doesn't start with "God says" or "The bible states".  I have heard those.  I want a logical reason.  Thank you. 


Largo
Largo's picture
Posts: 140
Joined: 2007-04-13
User is offlineOffline
Gizmo wrote: Heres a

Gizmo wrote:

Heres a question (and if its been answered somewhere else, could someone link me) that I would love to have an answer to.  Would someone please let me know, without referring to the bible or faith in their deity to strike people down, why homesexuality is wrong?

Well now, Gizmo, I always thought home was the best place for sexuality. ::ducks and runs, laughing maniacally::



DeeLock
DeeLock's picture
Posts: 21
Joined: 2007-03-01
User is offlineOffline
Please respond to gizmo's

Please respond to gizmo's question, i want to hear more stories of bigotry and hate.

 

Oh and by the way, don't pull the "it's unnatural" card on us:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0722_040722_gayanimal.html

Bisexuality immediately doubles your chances for a date on Saturday night.

-Woody Allen


canofbutter
Silver Member
canofbutter's picture
Posts: 37
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
Gizmo wrote: Heres a

Gizmo wrote:

Heres a question (and if its been answered somewhere else, could someone link me) that I would love to have an answer to. Would someone please let me know, without referring to the bible or faith in their deity to strike people down, why homesexuality is wrong?

The three big things politics wise that gets thrown around during elections is abortion, stem cell and gay rights/marriage. As stupid as I may think, the other two I guess if you have an issue killing cells then fine. However, I can not invision any reason why their is such distaste and the wish to ban gay marriage and to a lesser extent, gay rights. Someone give me something that doesn't start with "God says" or "The bible states". I have heard those. I want a logical reason. Thank you.

It might be worth revisiting this thread on that topic - it sort of ended abruptly.

I also would like more information on the topic of why homosexuality would still be considered "wrong" in a secular world...

Why yes, I can believe it's not butter!


Gizmo
High Level Donor
Gizmo's picture
Posts: 397
Joined: 2007-03-06
User is offlineOffline
This isn't a personal

This isn't a personal question (to clear that up).  If it were I may already have an answer.  I just find it idiotic that the government and people spend so much time and money on something that should not even be an issue (in the sense of why do people who aren't gay care what others do when it has no effect on them personally.  The only thing I can think of is the idea that they need to "save" peoples souls, which should not be legistlated). 

I mean stem cell research is close behind this.  Most of the research has to do with using embyros that are only about 150 cells or so big, so if people thing that when they scratch there head = murder (in the amount of removing cells) then I guess I can't argue it other than to say thats a tad irrational considering the good it could do.  

But yeah, I would like a response to the original question I posed.  Ill be out of town for a few days with possibly no internet so if someone does answer it ill end up getting it Saturday (assuming no internet). 


Largo
Largo's picture
Posts: 140
Joined: 2007-04-13
User is offlineOffline
The comment I made before

The comment I made before was just a joke. I thought that my "duck and run" follow-up made that clear. I was trying to lighten the mood, but I seem only to have darkened it. I apoligize. I think you pretty much answered the question yourself in the last post. People (too many people) think that they have not only to follow a philosophy or belief, but that for it to be valid it has to be universal. Everybody has to walk in lock-step for these people. Most of the people who hate homosexuality are grounded in religion, whether christian, jewish or muslim, and "deeply religious" people are never content to hold their beliefs to themselves. They have to force them on others. That isn't going to change as long as people believe in absurd fairy tales. 


Rigor_OMortis
Rigor_OMortis's picture
Posts: 557
Joined: 2006-06-18
User is offlineOffline
To be frank, I didn't

To be frank, I didn't expect this thread to actually last, or me to receive a response. so sorry for the late reply.

I asked:

Quote:

Why did God supposedly create us without our consent?

I don't remember being asked whether I want to exist or not, because certainly the answer would have been "no".

 

One more question: ok, God created us without our consent. Why is he threatening us with Hell now? How can you be considered "good" if you punish someone for something he didn't want to be part of in the first place?

P3RFECT replied:

Quote:

God wants us to see the beauty of the universe so he created us.

God didn't create hell for humans but, Jesus came and sacrificed himself for our sins so we can enter Heaven. We must accept him as our savior to not end up in Hell. Humans can't take responsbility for there own sins for it is to great. 

We are all sinners nobody is truly good. We all have free will to choose if you want to believe or not in God but, like i said before you can't bare your own sins so you can't enter Heaven without being cleansed.

Now let's take it slowly:

"God wants us to see the beauty of the universe so he created us." - I don't want to see what beauty God has created. I'm simply not interested. I don't want to know, I don't care, I don't want to live in this world. Does my opinion not count? Can God be righteous by forcing me into this world against my will? (hypothetical, of course)

"God didn't create hell for humans but, Jesus came and sacrificed himself for our sins so we can enter Heaven. We must accept him as our savior to not end up in Hell. Humans can't take responsbility for there own sins for it is to great." - there are numerous issues with this. First, it has no connection to my question. Next: not only does God force us to live as humans, he also forces us to love his son. I don't have any reason to love or to hate Jesus Christ, I simply don't care about him. Next: why are we forced into hell if we resist God's orders? I simply don't want to obey someone that forces me to live in a certain way against my wishes. Where is God's love and righteousness? Last: What do you mean we can't take responsibility for our own sins? What kind of nonsensical crap is this?

"We are all sinners nobody is truly good. We all have free will to choose if you want to believe or not in God but, like i said before you can't bare your own sins so you can't enter Heaven without being cleansed." - WHY can't I bear my own sins? And by the way, this again has no connection to my question. I didn't ask anything about Heaven, I don't care about it, I'm not interested in going there.

 

My questions still remain: Why did God force us to "see the beauty of his creation" (to use your exact words) without our consent? and Why does God threaten us with Hell if we don't obey his whimses? Facing these two questions, God's omnibenevolence and righteousness go down the drain faster than shit in an aircraft vacuum toilet.

Inquisition - "The flames are all long gone, but the pain lingers on..."
http://rigoromortis.blogspot.com/


moonhawk
Theist
Posts: 13
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Gizmo wrote:This isn't a

Gizmo wrote:

This isn't a personal question (to clear that up).  If it were I may already have an answer.  I just find it idiotic that the government and people spend so much time and money on something that should not even be an issue (in the sense of why do people who aren't gay care what others do when it has no effect on them personally.  The only thing I can think of is the idea that they need to "save" peoples souls, which should not be legistlated). 

I mean stem cell research is close behind this.  Most of the research has to do with using embyros that are only about 150 cells or so big, so if people thing that when they scratch there head = murder (in the amount of removing cells) then I guess I can't argue it other than to say thats a tad irrational considering the good it could do.  

But yeah, I would like a response to the original question I posed.  Ill be out of town for a few days with possibly no internet so if someone does answer it ill end up getting it Saturday (assuming no internet). 

My thoughts on homosexuality, stem cell research, and abortion, are thus:

I think that you are right in saying that morals "shouldn't be legislated." That goes for mine, yours, or theirs. I understand not having my morals being forced down the throats of homosexuals, but do they not understand forcing theirs down my throat is just as bad? Apparently not. Laws should be done only to the extent that they protect life and property, that's it! If they go beyond that, they are trying to legislate morals.

I personally don't care what anybody does in the privacy of their home. I don't want to know. Eeeww, TMI! I don't care if their gay, straight, or single, I don't want to know. Keep it to yourself. Sex is a wonderful thing, but  I don't want to know about yours. Did I say I didn't want to know?

And the link notwithstanding, it does seem unnatural to me in the sense that for 2 guys the plumbing is all wrong. Any plumber can tell you, you shouldn't have incoming going into the outflow. This would also hold true for a man and woman engaging in anal sex by the way.

From a medical standpoint the way I understand it , one possible cause of HIV/AIDS is by the mixed presence of feces and semen in the bloodstream. The best way to create this mixture is by having anal sex.

Biologically speaking it is a non-survuval trait because a homosexual act by itself won't perpetuate the species. And artificial insemenation falls into the unnatural category so that doesn't change the non-survivability of the trait.

Now on the other hand if gays want to bring their stuff out into the public forum and ask me if I approve by putting it on the ballot, then yeah, I'll vote against it. Because that is my view, which I'm entitled to in this country just like they are entitled to theirs.

(BTW, those folks protesting the soldiers funerals with "God hates fags" signs need to also read Deu 22:5 which states "The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so [are] abomination unto the LORD thy God." So a woman wearing pants is just as big a deal as "fags.&quotEye-wink

On to stem cells. My thing is, if adult stem cells show as much, if not more, promise of cures than embryonic stem cells why not use them. Assuming the adult cells work as well, why go through the bother of creating new life (embryos) just to kill it. Simple as that. And again if it is put on a ballot before all the comparisons are researched, I'll vote against it and for life.

My view on abortion is clear as well, it is taking a life. Pure and simple. And it is the most innocent life of all, have mercy on it!

Now, that being said, as a man I personally will never have an abortion or be put in the position of contemplating having one. And I can only imagine the turmoil and heartache a woman or young girl would go through even considering an abortion. It is not my call whether she has one or not, just like it is not my call whether someone shoots another claiming self defense. What would I do in either situation... I DON'T KNOW, I haven't been in that situation. So I'm not going to judge them.

On the other hand if they ask me for advice I will tell them not to have an abortion. If they put it on the ballot I will vote against it at the state or local level because I think there are better possibilities. 

At the federal level I would like to see Roe v. Wade overturned simply because that is something the federal govt has no business being involved with. Let each staes citizens vote on whether their state has abortions or not.  If the majority of citizens in my state voted for abortion and I disliked  it enough I could always move to a state that didn't have them. As far as I'm concerned Roe v. Wade is a federal intrusion ito peoples bedrooms. Goes along with legislating morals as mentioned above.

I am a firm believer in adoption, having an adopted daughter. If her mother, a cocaine addict, had aborted her, I couldn't see that pretty smile every night when I get home from work. That is why I am against abortion.

Follower of "I AM" the Elohim of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.


moonhawk
Theist
Posts: 13
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
rexlunae wrote: moonhawk

rexlunae wrote:
moonhawk wrote:
Why is it that we humans tend to label those we agree with as REAL  and those we disagree with as PSEUDO. How many SCIENTIFIC advances were made by so-called pseudo-scientists with no training and no respect from the REAL scientists of the day? Orville and Wilbur Wright were bicycle shop owners, NOT aeronautical engineers, but look what they did.
It has nothing to do with agreeing or not agreeing. It's just that pseudo-science has certain common elements, and Wyatt shares them. Most of the time, when people rail against the scientific establishment, they are frauds. The same thing happens with creation 'science'.
moonhawk wrote:
Ron Wyatt was by training and profesion n anesthesiologist, which by the way is a SCIENTIFIC field trained in SCIENTIFIC methods. Is it not possible that he took the scientific training he received in one field and used it in another?
Possible, maybe, but not likely. There's a reason these things are separate studies; they have different established and tested methods which have been shown to work. And, I would point out that he was actually a nurse-anesthetist, meaning that he may have had less training, and in some states he wouldn't have even had to complete a 4-year undergraduate degree (I haven't been able to find a complete description of his actual training). But, if he were accepted by historians or archaeologists, I would be more inclined to believe his claims, however it appears that his standards of proof are too low.
moonhawk wrote:
As for no respect from the so-called REAL archeologists and historians, big deal! What is their agenda? Could it be jealousy that THEY didn't discover what he did? Could it be that they are athiests and would dismiss out-of-hand ANY discovery proving the Bible or a portion of it were true?
For this to be an explanation, you would have to believe that most archaeologists and historians are dishonest, or that most of them are atheists and biased, or both. Seems unlikely. Are you seriously ready to argue that Ron Wyatt is the only real archaeologist or historian?
moonhawk wrote:
And why would you say "All his claims are suspect, especially given the number of Biblical sites he claims to have discovered?" Does this mean ALL of Thomas Edison's discoveries and inventions are suspect given the number of them? That would be absurd! The number of discoveries one makes or claims to make is NOT an automatic disqualification of them all.
I question the number because the things he is supposedly discovering are from thousands of years ago, and all Biblical. Isn't it just too convenient that for thousands of years, these things which supposedly contributed so much to the culture of the Western and Near Eastern world have been missing, and then suddenly one guy without any proper training finds them all over the course of just 22 years?
moonhawk wrote:
Assuming you actually read the article in the link, if you disagree with his findings, what would be your conclusion based on the findings?
Well, first of all, I don't feel the need to draw my own conclusions. I'm not qualified. I'd be much more interrested in the conclusions of someone who is. Second, I would insist on the documentation of the findings coming from an objective source. The article you posted has phrases like "but it appears that the coral was the agent the Lord used to preserve them" in it, it states Biblical narrative as unquestioned fact, and quotes Bible verses as part of their case.

I first found out about Ron Wyatt's website in the late mid- to late-90's. When I read the articles, I was immediately taken by the depth of the information and the "scientific' data gathered. However I did google the web for dissenters. At the time I found only one vocal one who looked to be a "disgruntled ex-employee" type. Mostly hot air with little to back it but his opinions. Later, after Google Earth appeared, I did a search on it and sure enough, you can see the boat shape right where he said it is "in the mountains of Ararat." Then I looked at Saudia Arabia and sure enough, there was  the beach he mentioned where the Isrealites crossed the Red Sea, and then I found the mountain he claimed was Mt. Sinaii! The guy must surely be lead by God to find all this!

I didn't think to go back and re-check for dissenters before mentioning him the other day. For this I apologize. I was wrong about Ron Wyatt and should not have even brought him up.

The link you  included in your reply was perfect, because not only were there professional archeologists explaining how his claims couldn't be true, but there were also some professionals from his own denomination and belief system, who had every reason to want it to be true, honestly explaining why it wasn't true. That was the real kicker.

Thank you for your well thought out, articulate, non-harrassing reply. I have learned a great deal from it.

Again I apologize to you and all others on this board for throwing what I see now as an obvious scam at you guys. I will do more/better research next time.

Follower of "I AM" the Elohim of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.


rexlunae
rexlunae's picture
Posts: 378
Joined: 2007-01-07
User is offlineOffline
moonhawk wrote: I first

moonhawk wrote:
I first found out about Ron Wyatt's website in the late mid- to late-90's. When I read the articles, I was immediately taken by the depth of the information and the "scientific' data gathered. However I did google the web for dissenters. At the time I found only one vocal one who looked to be a "disgruntled ex-employee" type. Mostly hot air with little to back it but his opinions. Later, after Google Earth appeared, I did a search on it and sure enough, you can see the boat shape right where he said it is "in the mountains of Ararat." Then I looked at Saudia Arabia and sure enough, there was  the beach he mentioned where the Isrealites crossed the Red Sea, and then I found the mountain he claimed was Mt. Sinaii! The guy must surely be lead by God to find all this!

Pseudo-science is often very convincing, especially to the people who (like me and probably you too) aren't experts in the field in question, so it can be easy to be taken in. Some pseudo-scientists are probably even well-intentioned and genuine. One thing to remember is that the lack of an opposing scientific opinion can be just as easily a result of no scientist having the time or inclination to take on bogus claims as anything else.

moonhawk wrote:
I didn't think to go back and re-check for dissenters before mentioning him the other day. For this I apologize. I was wrong about Ron Wyatt and should not have even brought him up.

No need to apologize; that's exactly the reason discussion forums exist.

moonhawk wrote:
Thank you for your well thought out, articulate, non-harrassing reply. I have learned a great deal from it.

I'm glad it helped.

It's only the fairy tales they believe.


Free Thinking
Free Thinking's picture
Posts: 128
Joined: 2007-05-11
User is offlineOffline
moonhawk wrote: And the

moonhawk wrote:

And the link notwithstanding, it does seem unnatural to me in the sense that for 2 guys the plumbing is all wrong. Any plumber can tell you, you shouldn't have incoming going into the outflow. This would also hold true for a man and woman engaging in anal sex by the way.

Okay, I am really confused. Ummm... vagina... in or out? in goes the peni, out comes a baby.... what about when I'm menstruatiing? blood comes out... but semen goes in..

moonhawk wrote:

I am a firm believer in adoption, having an adopted daughter. If her mother, a cocaine addict, had aborted her, I couldn't see that pretty smile every night when I get home from work. That is why I am against abortion.

Damn fine reason for being anti-abortion. I bet it is indeed a beauitful smile! Smiling

If I go into parenting... I think that's what I will do too. Adopt.

moonhawk wrote:

Now on the other hand if gays want to bring their stuff out into the public forum and ask me if I approve by putting it on the ballot, then yeah, I'll vote against it. Because that is my view, which I'm entitled to in this country just like they are entitled to theirs.

This perplexes me. You are entitled to yor opinion but why should you get to vote on someone else's decision?

 

 

Judge: god, you have been accused of existence! What do you have to say for yourself?

god: I am innocent until proven guilty, your honour!